What about those jumping genes?

I.E. Hootmon for authoring the thread and Crashfrog for arguing the minority view regardless of whether it is supportive of evolutionism or not. (That is not to imply that CF's viewpoint is the correct one. It appears that nobody knows for sure at this point. That's for each of us to evaluate in our own minds as the thread progresses.)Likely others unapprised in the subject to whatever degree find this fascinating topic as interesting and informative as I do. So far as how this debate relates to the big EvC debate, the possibility of HGT appears more supportive to evolution whereas contamination would be the more supportive of the traditional ID version of creationism.So far I think I am understanding something about what HGT is about and perhaps the significance of the debate. NOTE: I was thinking of posting this in POM but decided I'd better aire it here in the thread in case I am mistaken in something I'm stating. Perhaps if I find it acceptable I may decide to link this message with a short introduction in POM.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present is forever consuming the eternal future and extending the infinite past.

Thanks for the detailed explanation. I had to look up some words which aided in comprehending what you posted as to why contamination may not be counter to ToE.I'm still wondering why it would be the opposite as you say in which case contamination would undermine the traditional ID version of creationism.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present is forever consuming the eternal future and extending the infinite past.

I use a lot more than faith for debating creationism at EvC, in fact a lot more non-faith arguments for my ideology. Just as in secularist arguments I'm constantly required to document things etc just like you people are. This thread may not be the place to debate this and I won't because I'm not capable, but I grab onto all I can which supports my ideology to any degree. So if HGT should become imperically substantiated I still understand it as a problem for accredited science creationists to address. Frankly as a Biblical creationist I'm pleased to see that it is debatable.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present is forever consuming the eternal future and extending the infinite past.

OK Mobiogirl, thanks. Perhaps then so long as it's not observed in higher life forms CF and HM are right that it has little or no relevance to the creationism/evolution debate.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present is forever consuming the eternal future and extending the infinite past.